Rhetorical questions for the Star Tribune

Reader Tim Peterson writes to comment on “The evidence on Iran.” Mr. Peterson writes:

Thank you for your post. I followed the link to the Star Tribune editorial. Another paragraph that you didn’t mention jumped out at me:

The briefers made a big deal of these supposed Iranian munitions that are being smuggled to the Shiites in Iraq, but it’s not the Shiites the Americans are fighting — primarily it’s the Sunni insurgents. So even if Washington can prove to a skeptical American people that the Iranian government is doing munitions smuggling (a very big “if”), the importance of that also needs to be established.

My son is a soldier in the Minnesota National Guard. A week ago on Friday he was injured by the type of bomb that could have come from Iran. He was patrolling in a solidly Shiite area of Iraq. Fortunately he was in the hospital for only six days and is expected to fully recover from his injury in six weeks.
Does the Star Tribune not care about Minnesota Guardsmen being attacked? That’s not important? And even if those weapons were “just” intended for the ethnic conflict — is that not important? Are they really saying they don’t care about those weapons? Can’t the Star Tribune find a way to express its opposition to the war and the Bush administration without saying that weapons don’t matter? Weapons that are being used against their neighbors in the Minnesota Guard? Is this what it means to oppose the Bush administration but still be in support of our troops?

Unfortunately, I think the Star Tribune is a good stand-in for the current state of liberal opinion on the war and the troops.
Participants in the Forum are talking about the evidence against Iran here.


Books to read from Power Line